Purfling carving tips?

[Rico Suave]

Sorry to skew the discussion, but since Davide, David and Jackson opened the can of worms...

Just what are some of the currently acceptable visible 'mistakes' (details) that show the hand of an individual craftsman rather than the sterile work of a factory fiddle?  

I suppose, such details as the (not readily visible) inside surface of the ribs or the blocks left with the grooves of a toothed plane, or other tool marks, may qualify, but, EXTERNALLY, what tool marks, asymmetries or nuanced details should one avoid spending too much effort to efface?

Let's take Purfling as an example; deepening layout lines and cutting the walls with a knife (or even a Dremel /Mill Cutter) may lead to cutting some areas wider than is wanted, resulting in a loose dry fit, or even a gap. Glue will fill the gap, but will show as a 'bulge' of the darker outer strip - Is this 'acceptable'? It certainly may be indicative of (unsteady) hand-work.

 

[JacksonMaberry]

40 minutes ago, Rico Suave said:

Sorry to skew the discussion, but since Davide, David and Jackson opened the can of worms...

Just what are some of the currently acceptable visible 'mistakes' (details) that show the hand of an individual craftsman rather than the sterile work of a factory fiddle?  

I suppose, such details as the (not readily visible) inside surface of the ribs or the blocks left with the grooves of a toothed plane, or other tool marks, may qualify, but, EXTERNALLY, what tool marks, asymmetries or nuanced details should one avoid spending too much effort to efface?

 

I'm not clear on how to answer this, because so much of it comes down to taste. In an artisanal/artistic endeavor, taste is the thing. Anything done to excess, without reason, is in poor taste.

For my taste, I leave only what tool marks are simply there as a result of my method. I don't make an effort to leave any, but I don't seek to erase any that arise naturally in the course of my method. This might not make sense or be satisfying, and if that's the case I apologize. I wonder if the only way to really understand any given artist/craftsperson's take on this is to live in their skin while they work. Or, in other words, impossible? I don't know.

[Kevin_D]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:19 AM, Crimson0087 said:

So I'm at the stage of carving purfling chanel. Anyone ever use a Dremel with this tool? I think I'm too scared to put a spinning blade of death near something I've worked so hard on. Anyway my first attempt I used this tool pictured to mark the purfling and I ended up with a Chanel too large. I think the blades aren't spaced appropriately. Do y'all recommend I sand them down to bring the points closer together or should I raise one and mark one side of the Chanel at a time? Suggestions? Or should I take my chances with the stew Mac tool?

I don't own the Stew-Mac tool so I can't tell you first hand if it's any good or not, but I did interview their inventor and the following is an excerpt from that interview: "I was asked to design a marking system for a stringed instrument maker who was attempting to produce a violin to rival the quality of the Stradivarius. The maker needed to mark the instrument's alignment points on the inside of the instrument in such a way that it would be visible when the top and back were fit together. His existing methods were inadequate, so I developed a tool, and a process for making the tool, that would mark four straight alignment points on the inside of the instrument. This process and tool solved that maker's problems." So it sounds like the Stew-Mac tool is designed for stringed instrument makers... If you make guitars or mandolins or ukuleles then it might not work for you. And if you want to be able to make more than four alignment points then you should probably go to a machine shop and have a custom tool made. A Dremel tool is probably your cheapest option by far. I have never used one so I can't comment on their performance. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.

[JacksonMaberry]

6 hours ago, Kevin_D said:

I don't own the Stew-Mac tool so I can't tell you first hand if it's any good or not, but I did interview their inventor and the following is an excerpt from that interview: "I was asked to design a marking system for a stringed instrument maker who was attempting to produce a violin to rival the quality of the Stradivarius. The maker needed to mark the instrument's alignment points on the inside of the instrument in such a way that it would be visible when the top and back were fit together. His existing methods were inadequate, so I developed a tool, and a process for making the tool, that would mark four straight alignment points on the inside of the instrument. This process and tool solved that maker's problems." So it sounds like the Stew-Mac tool is designed for stringed instrument makers... If you make guitars or mandolins or ukuleles then it might not work for you. And if you want to be able to make more than four alignment points then you should probably go to a machine shop and have a custom tool made. A Dremel tool is probably your cheapest option by far. I have never used one so I can't comment on their performance. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.

Which tool is being discussed here? Alignment points? The OP was asking about the stewmac purfling tool, which is an attachment for a Dremel.

[Jluthier]

13 hours ago, Rico Suave said:

Sorry to skew the discussion, but since Davide, David and Jackson opened the can of worms...

Just what are some of the currently acceptable visible 'mistakes' (details) that show the hand of an individual craftsman rather than the sterile work of a factory fiddle?  

I suppose, such details as the (not readily visible) inside surface of the ribs or the blocks left with the grooves of a toothed plane, or other tool marks, may qualify, but, EXTERNALLY, what tool marks, asymmetries or nuanced details should one avoid spending too much effort to efface?

Let's take Purfling as an example; deepening layout lines and cutting the walls with a knife (or even a Dremel /Mill Cutter) may lead to cutting some areas wider than is wanted, resulting in a loose dry fit, or even a gap. Glue will fill the gap, but will show as a 'bulge' of the darker outer strip - Is this 'acceptable'? It certainly may be indicative of (unsteady) hand-work.

 

I own a 1963 Carl Becker violin.  Everything about this violin, scroll, outline, F holes, and of course the purfling are so perfect that it seems humanly impossible, especially for me.  And yes, the tone is amazing as well.  However, I still aspire to that perfection and end up with obvious signs of hand made imperfection.  I wonder if by today's standards, Becker would be judged too perfect to appear hand made.  If any of you know how Becker and Son worked, I would love to know!  

[Davide Sora]

14 minutes ago, Jluthier said:

I own a 1963 Carl Becker violin.  Everything about this violin, scroll, outline, F holes, and of course the purfling are so perfect that it seems humanly impossible, especially for me.  And yes, the tone is amazing as well.  However, I still aspire to that perfection and end up with obvious signs of hand made imperfection.  I wonder if by today's standards, Becker would be judged too perfect to appear hand made.  If any of you know how Becker and Son worked, I would love to know!  

Perfection is not necessarily a negative aspect, I believe that the greatest humanly possible perfection is an aspiration that leads to wanting to constantly improve, which is not a bad thing at all. But for violin making instead of perfection I think it is better to speak of accuracy of the work, because the term "perfection" is too often seen in a negative way because it is associated with machine work, which is not necessarily true if the quantity and the low cost of pieces produced is not a priority.

And then, the concept of perfection lies in the eye of the beholder.

[JacksonMaberry]

3 minutes ago, Davide Sora said:

Perfection is not necessarily a negative aspect, I believe that the greatest humanly possible perfection is an aspiration that leads to wanting to constantly improve, which is not a bad thing at all. But for violin making instead of perfection I think it is better to speak of accuracy of the work, because the term "perfection" is too often seen in a negative way because it is associated with machine work, which is not necessarily true if the quantity and the low cost of pieces produced is not a priority.

I think this is well said, thanks Davide.

Regarding Becker and others of the type, I want to circle back round to taste again, as well as authenticity.

I've seen a lot of Beckers (from several members of the family), and while they are what I would consider very clean and precise, there is nothing artificial or forced about it. One never gets the impression that this level of "straightness" or crispness is simply chased down for its own sake, but rather is the result of the maker's personal philosophy and method.

Becker senior studied with Johann (John) Horsteiner, and as such the Beckers are inheritors of the Mittenwald tradition, which is known for its fastidiousness. In his own context then, I think Becker Sr's high level of polish is harmonious and authentic, and therefore in good taste. 

If it helps clarify things at all, I'll offer as a point of  contrast Sgarabotto. The elder S was first an autodidact, and later worked under Bisiach where he was no doubt exposed to fine old Italians (and not just Strads, critically, but Milanese, Brescian, and other makes) as well as the then current trends in north Italianate technique. The younger S studied with his father, and the work clearly bears the formers influence. Tool marks abound, but the instruments have an internally consistent "language" of tool use - they are highly sought after and treasured tools for musicians, just like those of Becker. Artistically, both of these storied makers produced work that is self referential, cohesive, and beautiful, though the details are rather different. These are all genuine expressions of their personal aesthetic aims, with nothing forced or out of place. 

So since this comes down to good taste, it is necessarily subjective. Some will not enjoy the Sgarabotto work and decry it as messy, some will not like the Becker work and complain of it's stiffness. Both complaints are, in my view, misplaced. 

[David Burgess]

1 hour ago, Jluthier said:

.  I wonder if by today's standards, Becker would be judged too perfect to appear hand made.  If any of you know how Becker and Son worked, I would love to know!  

That was Carl Jr.s personal working style, and I don't mind it at all. He did a lot of his work using optical magnification. We've come to know these magnifiers as "Becker Checkers".

[Jluthier]

This is all great information. It gives me some context.  Thanks guys!